New setting: Upkeep [Poll for minimum reinforcements]

[OliverFA]

I personally don't like it, don't know why, just really don't.

I suppose that this kind of games are not of you like. Just a matter of tastes. The goal of the suggestion is to make the game more realistic (more like real war) and also more strategic. For people like me that's important, and for other people thats not so important. Different people and different tastes

[OliverFA]

I really like this idea and with all the comments in just a few days, I nominate it for sticky status

Thanks!

[SirSebstar]

Wow, i was on the fence on this suggestion after initially thinking there was some flaw with it.
Woodruff totally convinced me. There should always! be a way to get out of a loosing situation. The suggestion that because you have only one countrie, therefor you get no reinforcements to your stack is simply one that cannot be tolerated as a setting. There are a few maps where you can get into serious troubles, like prison max and a few others, but on settings? that sucks..

As far as i can see the current proposal still does not deal with having loads of countries with 1 army counting to the size of your stack.
Although it might sound nice, this is just creating a whole set of troubles. i'd like to see each point adressed before continueing to debate the merits of this proposal.

first off,
if someone has less countries and therefor less income, but still a few stacks hiden behind neutrals, he should just wildly attack to get rid of his numbers? bad idea... (I could see how stacks beyond 3 could count for the stacktax, but not less, this would also eliminate the 1st turn tax)

is there any way a player without a bonus can get back to a normal level if the other player actually has a bonus? aka one can afford the tax, the other does not therefor you invite suicidal tactics to get rid of as many troops as fast as possible to to get your troops to the place you need in the form of deployment. this invites even more deadbeats to deadbeat. hell i would if my opponant has not enough income to kill me fast, but i cannot even get a reasonable income at all!

there are a few other concerns already writen down that are not adressed. i'd like the OP to adres these on a point for point example.
thanks

[OliverFA]

there are a few other concerns already writen down that are not adressed. i'd like the OP to adres these on a point for point example.
thanks

I think the fourth post in this page addreses them. If that's not the case please tell me which are those concerns and I'll be happy to solve them.

EDIT: To clarify things, this post talks about the possibility of raising the minimum reinforcement from 0 to 3 (or wathever is the minimum in that map. Usually it's 3 but in a few maps it's different).

[OliverFA]

I have added a poll to learn people's opinion about what should be the minimum reinforcements number.

[SirSebstar]

Mapsize is not taken into account.
You stated that this is up to the mapmaker, but I don’t understand If I hold 30 countries with 1 army I get 10 new troops if I do not hold a bonus. Someone with a bonus can then get more troops then me, provided he has less countries. This is weird. You cannot break his bonus because he has a bigger army then you, and you do not get the reinforcements needed to break him.

Upkeep should not affect turn 1

SirSebstar wrote:strategies that would go boom.
it does mean you need the bonussess of countries more then the amount of countries.

That is what already happens. Isn't it? You need the bonuses of countries in order to have a good income.
No, I can easily get more countries and win that way, countries is an easier defendable bonus then many bonuses and this way I do not have to spend troop killing neutrals.
Edit: Upkeep Cost=(# of armies - 3* # of territories) *Upkeep modifier would indeed solve ALL the above mentioned problems! provided you keep i a 3

Remains:

This should be controlled by the mapmaker. The values I suggested are standard values. But in a second phase an XML tag could be added for the mapmaker to specify the upkeep multiplier. Something like <UpkeepMultiplier> of similar. The standard values would be multiplied by this number.

How does this work? There would not be a fixed setting but a variable one depending on the map? Is this true?

(remaining)Player count should be added into the formula.

Woodruff stated that if a player is down and his only chance is to stack, he would not be able to. You stated that this is just the way it is. Can you tell me why this would not incourage deadbeating, since there is no way out, you just have to wait to be killed.. because you cannot stack and you cannot move without killing yourself…

Can you give me an example of how this game could go on say classic and how this would end games sooner, say in a 1 vs 1 setting..

How does this clash with the manual setting and how is this resolved (or are they mutually exclusive)?

[Dako]

I think this setting was designed to match the real war. I do not know any historical turn when one was cornered in a small spot (1 town) with a huge army and was still possible to feed it. It's like a siege - the more time you spend - the more troops will die. Here you will just not get any income. So if you are down t o1 region - ueah, most likely you will lose the game. Unless it is escalating - then everyone has chanced. In NS - yeah, game over (or wait till other players resolve their battle and sit there till the moment you can advance to more terr size).

I think the logic is pretty good there. You are talking about people turned to 1 territory (an edge case), but you do not take the layout of the other parts of the map. If it is 1v1 - gg anyway. Team-game - you still have teammates to cover you. Free for all game - other players will clash and no one will touch you - just wait to strike at the right moment.

So I think we need to model the whole board before we say yay or nay.

[OliverFA]

I'll try to answer all your questions in a satisfactory way. First of all, please take into account that I apreciate feedback, even if I disagree with it

For the examples, I will use 1/10 upkeep rate.

However, if the majority of people thinks that 0 reinforcements is not good (that's why I am running a poll), I have a solution for this, which is raising the minimum armies to the minimum in the map (usually 3).

Mapsize is not taken into account.
You stated that this is up to the mapmaker, but I don’t understand If I hold 30 countries with 1 army I get 10 new troops if I do not hold a bonus. Someone with a bonus can then get more troops then me, provided he has less countries. This is weird. You cannot break his bonus because he has a bigger army then you, and you do not get the reinforcements needed to break him.

If I understand correctly, your situation is:
-Player A 30 countries with no other bonus
-Player B less than 30 countries but some bonus.

Will player B get more armies than A? This will depend on several things: Number or armies that player A and B have, size of the player B bonus, and player B territories. We can't tell.

The only thing we can say for sure is that player A's 30 territories cost him 3 armies in upkeep and that in the case he had just 1 army in each of his 30 territories, he would get 7 reinforcements (10-3).

Upkeep should not affect turn 1

In my opinion, exceptions are bad. It makes the rule more difficult to understand AND to code. If the problem is that players could not get reinforcements in turn 1 and we decide it is an issue, then the way to solve it is to modify the general rule to avoid this problem. It would be solved by raising minimum reinforcements as I said above.

SirSebstar wrote:strategies that would go boom.
it does mean you need the bonussess of countries more then the amount of countries.

Oliverfa wrote:That is what already happens. Isn't it? You need the bonuses of countries in order to have a good income.
SirSebstar wrote: No, I can easily get more countries and win that way, countries is an easier defendable bonus then many bonuses and this way I do not have to spend troop killing neutrals.

Each three countries give you +10 upkeep limit, +1 reinforcement and costs you 0.3 upkeep per turn. This is a net result of +0.7 reinforcements per turn opposed (without the rule is +1 per turn) so it's still worth it.

But without this rule, any bonus is always a lot bigger then the small +1 per three countries. So I maintain that bonuses are what matter with or without that rule. And that strategies that use territories without bonus also work with the rule, they are just 30% less efective.

Edit: Upkeep Cost=(# of armies - 3* # of territories) *Upkeep modifier would indeed solve ALL the above mentioned problems! provided you keep i a 3

But would completely kill upkeep. As Dako pointed, it is unlikely to have an army bigger than 3 times your territories except in extreme cases.

Remains:

This should be controlled by the mapmaker. The values I suggested are standard values. But in a second phase an XML tag could be added for the mapmaker to specify the upkeep multiplier. Something like <UpkeepMultiplier> of similar. The standard values would be multiplied by this number.

How does this work? There would not be a fixed setting but a variable one depending on the map? Is this true?

The setting would work perfectly without needing the mapmaker to do anything.

But what I am saying is that once we have this setting, it would be very good to give the mapmaker the ability to play with it. Is like the standard reinforcement of 1 army per 3 territories. It works well, but mapmapkers can change it to 1 each 2 or 1 each 4 if they want to. They can do it, but they are not required to do it.

With upkeep it would de the same. They would be able to change the rules if they wanted, but they would not be forced to do it.

(remaining)Player count should be added into the formula.

Just like I said above, exceptions are bad.The formula should work the same for any number of players.

Woodruff stated that if a player is down and his only chance is to stack, he would not be able to. You stated that this is just the way it is. Can you tell me why this would not incourage deadbeating, since there is no way out, you just have to wait to be killed.. because you cannot stack and you cannot move without killing yourself…

First, a possible fix for this would be raising the minimum reinforcement to 3, and then it would work exactly like now.

Second, if we keep it at 0... I don't see why it encourages deadbetting. In the current gameplay, when a player is cornered in one territory with only +3 each turn and the other players get +20 or +30 each turn... Is he deadbetting? Because with each turn the difference grows bigger and bigger, so stacking won't help him much. If a player deabets with upkeep and +0 armies then he will probably also deabet without upkeep and +3 armies.

The difference is more a psycological one. with a small +3 it seems you are growing... but because everyone else grows also, and at a bigger pace, you are not growing at all. +0 just makes the situation more evident.

Third, remember that upkeep limit affect not only the cornered player, but also the rest of the players. This means that his army will still be a decent size compared to the rest of the players. Is a matter of waiting for the big players to kill themselves and then take the opportunity to grab some land. Exactly just like now.

Can you give me an example of how this game could go on say classic and how this would end games sooner, say in a 1 vs 1 setting..

That's a big thing to write. I'll do it later.

But I did not say that all kind of games will end sooner. I said that stalled games that become blocked and evolve into a building feast would end faster, as there is a limit for the number of armies a player can acumulate.

How does this clash with the manual setting and how is this resolved (or are they mutually exclusive)?

I think it does not clash at all. Manual setting is just manually placing your initial armies. That's not a proper reinforcement.

[OliverFA]

I think this setting was designed to match the real war.

Exactly! Thanks for pointing it.

I do not know any historical turn when one was cornered in a small spot (1 town) with a huge army and was still possible to feed it. It's like a siege - the more time you spend - the more troops will die. Here you will just not get any income. So if you are down t o1 region - ueah, most likely you will lose the game. Unless it is escalating - then everyone has chanced. In NS - yeah, game over (or wait till other players resolve their battle and sit there till the moment you can advance to more terr size).

I think the logic is pretty good there. You are talking about people turned to 1 territory (an edge case), but you do not take the layout of the other parts of the map. If it is 1v1 - gg anyway. Team-game - you still have teammates to cover you. Free for all game - other players will clash and no one will touch you - just wait to strike at the right moment.

I could have not explained it better. Thanks for your words.

So I think we need to model the whole board before we say yay or nay.

Maybe some test games simulating the rule, like what we did with Adjacent Attacks would be useful for working the issues.

[SirSebstar]

For the examples, I will use 1/10 upkeep rate.

wait what? 1/10 upkeep??? How does this work what does it mean....

If I understand correctly, your situation is:
-Player A 30 countries with no other bonus
-Player B less than 30 countries but some bonus.

Will player B get more armies than A? This will depend on several things: Number or armies that player A and B have, size of the player B bonus, and player B territories. We can't tell.

The only thing we can say for sure is that player A's 30 territories cost him 3 armies in upkeep and that in the case he had just 1 army in each of his 30 territories, he would get 7 reinforcements (10-3).

all things being equal, we can tell.. at least i want you to fill in the blanks. assuming the army size is equall, it will not matter if there are 5 million troops or only 5. if you suddenly also not accept that each country can feed a certain amount of troops present on that country then what are you talking about? Well lets continue with the above sample. Player A has 30 troops , 1 each on each country. Player B has 30 troops spaced on say 5 countries but he holds a bonus of +3. in the old example player B would loose if he stacks. He gets only an 8 unit reinforcement where player A gets 10 troops.

How does this clash with the manual setting and how is this resolved (or are they mutually exclusive)?

I think it does not clash at all. Manual setting is just manually placing your initial armies. That's not a proper reinforcement.

No, considering you can feed your army where it stands (like history should teach you), but not a big one (so say 3) normaly manual dictates you should build 1 big stack and kill the other big stack first.. in this proposal (assuming upkeep minus countries x3)the starting player would get little or no reinforcements for his big stack, while player 2 would if for some reason the attack killed of most troops….

Well, I have made my points. I just don’t see your reply give them an answer. I will just take it that this is a different setting that allows for different choices to be made. At the moment I have nothing new to add. I would not mind a PM once you have finalized your thoughts about this

[OliverFA]

For the examples, I will use 1/10 upkeep rate.

wait what? 1/10 upkeep??? How does this work what does it mean....

1/10 upkeep means that each troop costs you 0,1 reinforcements. Or to say in another way, that each 10 troops reduce your reinfocement in 1.

If I understand correctly, your situation is:
-Player A 30 countries with no other bonus
-Player B less than 30 countries but some bonus.

Will player B get more armies than A? This will depend on several things: Number or armies that player A and B have, size of the player B bonus, and player B territories. We can't tell.

The only thing we can say for sure is that player A's 30 territories cost him 3 armies in upkeep and that in the case he had just 1 army in each of his 30 territories, he would get 7 reinforcements (10-3).

all things being equal, we can tell.. at least i want you to fill in the blanks. assuming the army size is equall, it will not matter if there are 5 million troops or only 5. if you suddenly also not accept that each country can feed a certain amount of troops present on that country then what are you talking about? Well lets continue with the above sample. Player A has 30 troops , 1 each on each country. Player B has 30 troops spaced on say 5 countries but he holds a bonus of +3. in the old example player B would loose if he stacks. He gets only an 8 unit reinforcement where player A gets 10 troops.

-Player A:30 troops in 30 countries
-Player B:30 troops in 5 countries with +3 bonus

Player A receives +7 troops (+10 for territories - 3 upkeep cost)
Player B receives +3 troops (+3 for territories +3 for bonus -3 upkeep cost)

So the upkeep cost is the same as they have the sime size of army. But because player A has a diffeernce in bonus of 4, he gets 4 troops more.

I choose not to give any free maintenance per territory for 3 reasons:
1st - Not all territories can feed an army. Deserts or tundras don't feed anything.
2nd - As it has been explained above, this would kill the upkeep setting because it would make it pointless except in extreme situations.
3rd - And... in case we are modifiyng the formula... it is much better to modify it by raising the minimum reinforcement.

How does this clash with the manual setting and how is this resolved (or are they mutually exclusive)?

I think it does not clash at all. Manual setting is just manually placing your initial armies. That's not a proper reinforcement.

No, considering you can feed your army where it stands (like history should teach you), but not a big one (so say 3) normaly manual dictates you should build 1 big stack and kill the other big stack first.. in this proposal (assuming upkeep minus countries x3)the starting player would get little or no reinforcements for his big stack, while player 2 would if for some reason the attack killed of most troops….

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying

Well, I have made my points. I just don’t see your reply give them an answer. I will just take it that this is a different setting that allows for different choices to be made. At the moment I have nothing new to add. I would not mind a PM once you have finalized your thoughts about this

Sorry if I seem rude, but I have taken a lot of time answering to all our points. I feel offended by your statement that I have not replied you... Also, Dako has summarized all my explanations in a more shorter and clear way. So, what is that you still don't understand? I don't mind repeating the explanation again in a different way. But don't say I have not answered because that's not correct.

[SirSebstar]

Yea,
I really did not get it, so I could not see how you reply dealt with the identified problems. I think it’s more clear to me now

I still opposite, but I reserve judgement until I see a finalized proposal. Then I a going to crunch some numbers and see how it affects game play from my point of view.

[OliverFA]

Yea,
I really did not get it, so I could not see how you reply dealt with the identified problems. I think it’s more clear to me now

Good

I still opposite, but I reserve judgement until I see a finalized proposal. Then I a going to crunch some numbers and see how it affects game play from my point of view.

With all respects, I think you should not opposite because it makes the game better for people who like it to resemble more the real world, and for people who like games to be more strategic and complete. It helps retaining customers and atracting new ones.

I know there is a whole part of the customer base that don't care about realism, but that's not reason enough to spoil the fun of the other part, and to pass on the chance of atracting more players, retaining existing ones, and making the site grow.

That's also the reason why it would be an option. I dislike nuclear spoil games but I don't oppose to them being an option, because I know other people enjoy them.

[SirSebstar]

With all respects, I think you should not opposite because it makes the game better for people who like it to resemble more the real world, and for people who like games to be more strategic and complete. It helps retaining customers and atracting new ones.

I know there is a whole part of the customer base that don't care about realism, but that's not reason enough to spoil the fun of the other part, and to pass on the chance of atracting more players, retaining existing ones, and making the site grow.

That's also the reason why it would be an option. I dislike nuclear spoil games but I don't oppose to them being an option, because I know other people enjoy them.

And that is good too. I am not opposing it because i do not like you. i am opposing it because I think it will cause agrevation in the gameplay in the way freestyle is broken now. I think Woodruff identified the problem with being unable to break a gameleader. However because your formula's keep changing to accomodate comments (which is good) I cannot say with proof when and why things go wrong. I think your proposal deserves a good and well motivated example of why this is a bad iea, of should I come to the conclusion that it is not a bad idea (because I dont really know right now one way or the other) then I will support it. I also believe other (future)changes may pre-empt the neccecity for upkeep. Hence i reserve my judgement.

[OliverFA]

I understand. And as I said, I welcome the feedback

However, saying that is not possible to break the game leader using the single territory as an example is a bit extreme for me. Now, if we saw that when a player gets a small leads it's impossible for all the others to break him, that would be an issue.

But a player with just one territory has had a chance to break the leading player earlier. He has not got into the single territory by bad luck. He has got to that situation as a result of how events evolved. That's a extreme situation and a extreme example. And probably if he is in that situation he did something wrong (or not as good as the other players).

However, as Drako said, that player still has the chance to fly under the radar and wait for his chance. So he is not compeltely lost. He just has things very difficult (like with current settings).

[Dako]

Yes, you should not expect to win the game from 1 territory. Not with the current game settings, not with any other additions. It should be damn hard, because it is just 1 terr. It is damn hard right now, and this addition will not affect the mechanics - it still will be damn hard to make a come back from 1 terr.

[Woodruff]

I think this setting was designed to match the real war. I do not know any historical turn when one was cornered in a small spot (1 town) with a huge army and was still possible to feed it. It's like a siege - the more time you spend - the more troops will die. Here you will just not get any income. So if you are down t o1 region - ueah, most likely you will lose the game. Unless it is escalating - then everyone has chanced. In NS - yeah, game over (or wait till other players resolve their battle and sit there till the moment you can advance to more terr size).
I think the logic is pretty good there.

Yet the logic does not make a good game. It makes a deadbeat. In fact, it almost requires a deadbeat, in my opinion.

Woodruff stated that if a player is down and his only chance is to stack, he would not be able to. You stated that this is just the way it is. Can you tell me why this would not incourage deadbeating, since there is no way out, you just have to wait to be killed.. because you cannot stack and you cannot move without killing yourself…

First, a possible fix for this would be raising the minimum reinforcement to 3, and then it would work exactly like now.
Second, if we keep it at 0... I don't see why it encourages deadbetting. In the current gameplay, when a player is cornered in one territory with only +3 each turn and the other players get +20 or +30 each turn... Is he deadbetting? Because with each turn the difference grows bigger and bigger, so stacking won't help him much. If a player deabets with upkeep and +0 armies then he will probably also deabet without upkeep and +3 armies.

No, this is terrible logic. In a game where some armies are being gained, the 1-territory player absolutely has a chance to stack large enough that the other players won't want to expend their armies to attack him, because of how much it will weaken them. It doesn't MATTER that the other players are gaining many more armies than he is...merely that they are growing at the same rate, and so won't want to risk a big hit to their own stack in trying to take him out. In what you are proposing, that possibility does not exist at all...there is ZERO hope. Why WOULDN'T a player deadbeat? I take my turns-played pretty seriously, and I sure as hell would deadbeat.

The difference is more a psycological one. with a small +3 it seems you are growing... but because everyone else grows also, and at a bigger pace, you are not growing at all. +0 just makes the situation more evident.

No, this is clearly wrong, as I have outlined above.

Third, remember that upkeep limit affect not only the cornered player, but also the rest of the players. This means that his army will still be a decent size compared to the rest of the players. Is a matter of waiting for the big players to kill themselves and then take the opportunity to grab some land. Exactly just like now.

I disagree completely that this necessarily means that the 1-territory player will still have an army that will be a decent size compared to the rest of the players. Sure, that will happen sometimes, but it's absolutely not even an "average" consideration in my opinion.

Yes, you should not expect to win the game from 1 territory. Not with the current game settings, not with any other additions. It should be damn hard, because it is just 1 terr. It is damn hard right now, and this addition will not affect the mechanics - it still will be damn hard to make a come back from 1 terr.

I agree that it should be damn hard...no argument. But there should be hope. With this being implemented with the possibility of no reinforcements, it would literally be impossible, UNLESS the other players are abject idiots.

As for the "realism" claim, I prefer realism. Yet I have been told in other suggestions that realism is not relevant at all to this gaming experience and should not be seriously considered. I believe that applies in this case.

[OliverFA]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

[blakebowling]

I haven't kept up with the entire thread but, from what I see, I like the way this is going.

Stickied

[Woodruff]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

I disagree. It makes PERFECT sense. His opponents allowed it to happen, instead of killing him off when he had only 3 armies.

[OliverFA]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

I disagree. It makes PERFECT sense. His opponents allowed it to happen, instead of killing him off when he had only 3 armies.

But you already have a setting for this to happen. Why do you want a new setting that behaves exactly in the same way than the existing setting? If you want this to happen, you play "no upkeep". If you don't want this to happen, play "upkeep". That's the point of having two separate options.

Another game. I suppose in that one you will agree at least partially. Teal has 851 armies. Yet he is still adding 15 more per turn. Green has 623 and still adding 10 per turn. With upkeep, they would had surpassed their upkeep limit, and by that point they would be reinforcing 0 armies or 3 armies at most (depending if the minimum reinforcement was set at 0 or 3). Game 5523042

[OliverFA]

I haven't kept up with the entire thread but, from what I see, I like the way this is going.

Stickied

Thanks!

[Woodruff]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

I disagree. It makes PERFECT sense. His opponents allowed it to happen, instead of killing him off when he had only 3 armies.

But you already have a setting for this to happen. Why do you want a new setting that behaves exactly in the same way than the existing setting? If you want this to happen, you play "no upkeep". If you don't want this to happen, play "upkeep". That's the point of having two separate options.

The problem, as I have mentioned, is that your idea promotes deadbeats precisely BECAUSE of this situation.

[OliverFA]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

I disagree. It makes PERFECT sense. His opponents allowed it to happen, instead of killing him off when he had only 3 armies.

But you already have a setting for this to happen. Why do you want a new setting that behaves exactly in the same way than the existing setting? If you want this to happen, you play "no upkeep". If you don't want this to happen, play "upkeep". That's the point of having two separate options.

The problem, as I have mentioned, is that your idea promotes deadbeats precisely BECAUSE of this situation.

Again. I disagree. Take the second game I posted as an example. One player makes 15 armies a turn. The other player makes 10 armies a turn. What prevents the poor 3 armies-a-turn-player from deadbeating? Following your logic, that player would also deadbeat, because the chances for winning are very small. with or without those 3 armies.

Summarizing, they are very similar situaitons. Yet you predict that one will end in deadbeating. And the other, no.

On the other hand. Is not retiring considered an honourable thing in chess? Why is this so bad here in CC? But I think I'll better ask this question in the general forum.

[Woodruff]

Check game Game 7628072. An example of what should never happen, and what this setting would avoid.

Blue was down to 3 armies and 1 territory. Yet he has managed to rise to 100. This simply does not make any sense at all.

I disagree. It makes PERFECT sense. His opponents allowed it to happen, instead of killing him off when he had only 3 armies.

But you already have a setting for this to happen. Why do you want a new setting that behaves exactly in the same way than the existing setting? If you want this to happen, you play "no upkeep". If you don't want this to happen, play "upkeep". That's the point of having two separate options.

The problem, as I have mentioned, is that your idea promotes deadbeats precisely BECAUSE of this situation.

Again. I disagree. Take the second game I posted as an example. One player makes 15 armies a turn. The other player makes 10 armies a turn. What prevents the poor 3 armies-a-turn-player from deadbeating? Following your logic, that player would also deadbeat, because the chances for winning are very small. with or without those 3 armies.

There is a tremendous difference between "very small" and "nonexistent", in this respect. There is still hope with one method...with the other, there is none.

Summarizing, they are very similar situaitons. Yet you predict that one will end in deadbeating. And the other, no.

They are similar situations, yes...they are absolutely not equal at all. One will end in deadbeating far more often than the other does.

On the other hand. Is not retiring considered an honourable thing in chess? Why is this so bad here in CC? But I think I'll better ask this question in the general forum.

In MY opinion, there is a two-fold problem with deadbeating. The primary problem with it is that it slows down the game horridly, as we wait out the 72 hours of just having the game sitting there. The secondary problem with it (and this is minor, to me) is that it can lead to abuse.